This Paper Is a Non-Peer Reviewed Preprint Submitted to Eartharxiv

Expert judgements judgements on solar geoengineering research priorities and challenges Peter J. Irvine1,2, Elizabeth Burns2, Ken Caldeira3, Frank N. Keutsch2, Dustin Tingley4, and David W. Keith2 1Earth Sciences, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK 2Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA 3Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution, Stanford, California, USA 4Department of Government, Harvard University Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Corresponding author: Peter Irvine ([email protected]), ORCID: 0000-0002-5469-1543 Twitter handle: @peteirvine Keywords: Solar Geoengineering, Expert elicitation, climate change, climate research, research priorities, Solar Radiation Management This paper is a non-peer reviewed preprint submitted to EarthArxiv. 1 Abstract Solar geoengineering describes a set of proposals to deliberately alter the earth’s radiative balance to reduce climate risks. We elicit judgements on natural science research priorities for solar geoengineering through a survey and in-person discussion with 72 subject matter experts, including two thirds of all scientists with ≥10 publications on the topic. Experts prioritized Earth system response (33%) and impacts on society and ecosystems (27%) over the human and social dimensions (17%) and developing or improving solar geoengineering methods (15%), with most allocating no effort to weather control or counter-geoengineering. While almost all funding to date has focused on geophysical modeling and social sciences, our experts recommended substantial funding for observations (26%), perturbative field experiments (16%), laboratory research (11%) and engineering for deployment (11%). Of the specific proposals, stratospheric aerosols received the highest average priority (34%) then marine cloud brightening (17%) and cirrus cloud thinning (10%). The views of experts with ≥10 publications were generally consistent with experts with <10 publications, though when asked to choose the radiative forcing for their ideal climate scenario only 40% included solar geoengineering compared to 70% of experts with <10 publications. This suggests that those who have done more solar geoengineering research are less supportive of its use in climate policy. We summarize specific research recommendations and challenges that our experts identified, the most salient of which were fundamental uncertainties around key climate processes, novel challenges related to solar geoengineering as a design problem, and the challenges of public and policymaker engagement. 2 1 Introduction Solar geoengineering (also known as climate intervention, solar radiation management, or albedo modification, among other terms) describes a set of proposals to reflect light or increase the amount of outgoing thermal radiation, with the goal of reducing some of the impacts of climate change. The idea that the climate could be artificially cooled emerged in the 1960’s at the same time as the potential risks of climate change were being taken seriously for the first time (PSAC, 1965). In the following decades, the topic was included in all of the major climate assessments (e.g., NAS, 1977; 1983; 1992), and occasional articles explored the technical possibilities (Latham, 1990; Keith & Dowlatabadi, 1992; Teller et al., 1997). However, as climate change grew more visible and the transition away from fossil fuels became the focus for policy action, there was a relative decline in research and debate around solar geoengineering. In 2006, Paul Crutzen argued for the end of this de facto taboo on solar geoengineering research, noting that solar geoengineering may be necessary given the limited progress on emissions cuts and the limited prospects of a sufficient reduction going forward (Crutzen, 2006). Crutzen’s worries about emissions cuts were well-founded; emissions have risen over 20% since 2006 (Quéré et al., 2018), and his call for research seems to have been heeded. Prior to 2006 there were only ~50 solar geoengineering publications but from 2006 to 2018 around 1200 were published (Burns et al., 2019). Over the decade ending in 2018, cumulative global government funding directly addressing solar geoengineering (including both research and policy work) amounted to approximately $30 Million, with another $20 Million from philanthropic sources (Necheles et al., 2018). There have also been several major assessments by the UK Royal Society (Shepherd et al., 2009), the US National Academy of Sciences (McNutt et al., 2015), and others (Long et al., 2011; Schäfer et al., 2015). 3 This research has shown that several solar geoengineering proposals have potential to reduce some risks (Boucher et al., 2013; Irvine et al., 2016) and that stratospheric aerosol geoengineering in particular seems technically feasible, with relatively low direct deployment costs (Smith & Wagner, 2018). Research has clearly demonstrated both the dangers of using SRM as a substitute for emissions cuts, and that it could substantially reduce many climate hazards compared to a case without solar geoengineering (Boucher et al., 2013; Irvine et al., 2019; Keith & Irvine, 2016). Most researchers in the field recognize that major challenges for solar geoengineering lie outside of the scientific domain and researchers in other fields have highlighted several concerns here (Anshelm & Hansson, 2014; Shepherd et al., 2009). For example, there are the governance challenges of cooperating to develop and deploy these proposals (Bodansky, 2013; Virgoe, 2009), there is a danger of this idea discouraging near-term action on emissions cuts (a concern referred to as moral hazard) (Keith, 2000; Lin, 2013), and there are ethical concerns about whether it is right to intervene in the climate in this way (Gardiner, 2011; Jamieson, 1996). Because there is little broad support today for deployment of proposed solar geoengineering schemes, the primary question facing policymakers at this stage is whether and how to engage in a strategic research effort to assess these proposals. Such an assessment would be critical for informed decision-making on the questions of whether and how to develop and deploy solar geoengineering. Thus far, solar geoengineering research has been largely exploratory and ad hoc, with some notable exceptions such as the geoengineering model intercomparison project (GeoMIP) (Kravitz et al., 2011). An important step towards reaching a strategic research agenda is a structured approach to identifying research needs, priorities and 4 challenges. This paper is a first attempt to identify these needs using a structured survey and discussion with many of the natural science researchers working in this field. Most reports into solar geoengineering have outlined some specific research gaps (e.g. (Long et al., 2011; NRC, 2015; Schäfer et al., 2015; Shepherd et al., 2009)) and several have made specific recommendations regarding funding (NRC, 2015; Shepherd et al., 2009), or on the potential organization for research efforts (Long et al., 2011; USGCRP, 2016), but most of these recommendations have not been very detailed. Several peer-reviewed articles have discussed research priorities in greater depth, for example: Caldeira and Keith and (2010) discuss potentially high-value solar geoengineering research and the challenges of getting it funded in the US, Keith et al. (2014) discussed potential field experiments for solar geoengineering, MacMartin et al. (2016) reviewed research gaps and priorities for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, and MacMartin and Kravitz (2019) outlined a mission-driven approach for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering research. Many more papers have also explored research priorities for specific areas, such as sea-level rise (Irvine et al., 2018), climate impacts (Irvine et al., 2017) and ecosystem impacts (McCormack et al., 2016). The most substantial effort to outline a research agenda for solar geoengineering at the time of writing is at the National Academy of Sciences, currently underway and scheduled to be completed in mid-2020. There have been several studies which assess the views of solar geoengineering experts (Mercer, 2014; Merk et al., 2019; Winickoff et al., 2015), the views of climate experts on solar geoengineering (Bellamy & Healey, 2018; Dai et al., under review; Dannenberg & Zitzelsberger, 2019; Himmelsbach, 2018), and many studies of the public perceptions of solar geoengineering (Burns et al. (2016) provide a recent review of this literature). However, only a few studies have applied expert assessments to assess solar geoengineering and identify research priorities. 5 Bellamy et al. (2013, 2014) elicited expert and public views on solar geoengineering alongside a broader range of climate policy options, applying a multi-criteria mapping approach to open up the assessment. In contrast to previous assessment exercises which considered a smaller set of criteria, e.g. the Royal Society Report’s assessment of geoengineering methods (Shepherd et al., 2009), they found that stratospheric aerosol geoengineering performed poorly compared to other options when their wide set of criteria were considered. Sugiyama et al. (2017) asked experts to submit a wide set of transdisciplinary research questions for solar geoengineering research then convened a workshop with both scientists and stakeholders to discuss and narrow down these inputs into a list of 40 prioritized research questions. In this paper, we report the results of a survey

Load more